The diversity measure squishes its numerical score close together as you
approach 100 percent diversity. But i note you have not normalized your
scores in any event. This cap on diversity numbers and the resulting
squishing is why they can not track with variance numbers in anything like a
linear way. Variance keeps growing with age and also with mixing of
disparate populations; diversity measure is bounded.

I personally think it is a poor measure to focus on because it can not be
related to much else; it is just a seat of the pants measure originally
designed for the cops, I think, so they could sound scientific when called
to testify in court and asked how well some dna measurements differentiated
one person from another in a population.

But this can of worms maybe should not be opened too far on this forum? If
you think unproductive debate has raged concerning variance, I think
diversity measure debate would be worse.

I apologize for not breaking out Cisalpine Gaul (North Italy)
separately. Argiedude asked me to do so and when I did we found that
R-U152 diversity is higher in North Italy (Emilia-Romagna,
Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Liguria, Lombardy, Piedmont, Trentino-Alto
Adige/Südtirol and Veneto) than in Switzerland and Austria (and
Germany for that matter). South and Central Italy have lower
diversity numbers than any of the countries in the Alpine region.

The Myres study has higher diversity for R-U152 in Germany. That
doesn't match at all with our project data.